First of all this is not meant to be a degradation of religion but instead an intellectual discourse to discuss the purpose of religion and the validity to the existence or nonexistence of god/gods. Please keep this as open as possible to discuss civilly this topic that has been affecting humanity since before history. I will try to remain as neutral and bias free as I go forward and I encourage others to interject and discuss further ideas. Also be warned, this is a working piece and there is no way I could finish it in one night so I apologize if my ideas are not fully explored in this initial post.
Now before diving into this argument, a definition for religion has to be established as well as the opposite. I feel that people often correlate religion with only believing in god or some other deity but I believe that religion can be expanded to include other strict adherences to ideas or thoughts. For example an atheist could be considered religious by some degree. An atheist who attacks others for not believing as they do and essentially adhering to a belief in all things opposite of god is as fanatical as any religious zealot. They claim logic and rational as their calling but it could be thought illogical and irrational to refuse the impact of religion and god; good or bad. It would be illogical and irrational to not consider all possibilities, including the possibility that religion is humanities greatest asset just as it would be illogical for a religious person to ignore the faults within their own beliefs. So I believe that this definition of religion is perhaps the most accurate as it does not just include those that believe in a god but all whom strictly follow an idea despite the evidence against it.
The opposite of religion would then need to be completely bias free and neutral, looking only at things how they are and accepting all possibilities until proven false. Obviously, it is very improbable to spend life living in such a way and the possible mental and social consequences of doing so could be dire. For the sake of the argument though this has to be the definition of being non-religious. Following this definition it can be argued that only a few or maybe even none, non-religious people have existed. This is not surprising as we look at the history of humanity. There are a few extremes that really stand out and a majority of history books focus on this and ignore the majority middle ground just from the simple fact that it is boring. This perpetuates a bias though of the world existing in one extreme to another and there being no middle ground. This is obviously is not true and perhaps most of the world functions in some gray area with a few outspoken extremist overshadowing the majority.
For us to move forward we have to ignore this and look at humanity and every religion as a whole and not as separate entities. Based just of a simple definition, there is no difference between a Catholic or a Muslim or a Buddhist and from a broad perspective there truly is no difference in the general level of faith. We are not evaluating ones level of faith by willingness to sacrifice themselves, so as we go forward please step beyond that and look at faith or religion as equal, no matter the extremes. It is more logical to consider the middle ground and not the extremes that would cause the evaluation to be skewed. Of course it is important to consider these extremes by the sheer fact of how they can impact the world but what I am trying to evaluate is the simple idea of religion and not the fanatical version which has been contorted and distorted to a degree that it can be almost as debilitating as any mental deficiency.
So let us begin by first evaluating the idea or belief in a deity or deities. Atheists and skeptics far and wide argue that god is blight upon humanity that limits our physical and mental possibilities. They have valid evidence to such ideas because of the countless deaths caused by the belief in god and many religions encourage the idea of human superiority that leads to massive destruction of the earth. These arguments are valid and show part of what makes religion irrational but these arguments fail to acknowledge some counter arguments. Looking at the idea that we are part of nature and all that we think and construct is part of nature, including god and religion it puts a question to these ideas of religion being a fault. This makes it as real as any manmade construct like language, mathematics, science, etc
Now before diving into this argument, a definition for religion has to be established as well as the opposite. I feel that people often correlate religion with only believing in god or some other deity but I believe that religion can be expanded to include other strict adherences to ideas or thoughts. For example an atheist could be considered religious by some degree. An atheist who attacks others for not believing as they do and essentially adhering to a belief in all things opposite of god is as fanatical as any religious zealot. They claim logic and rational as their calling but it could be thought illogical and irrational to refuse the impact of religion and god; good or bad. It would be illogical and irrational to not consider all possibilities, including the possibility that religion is humanities greatest asset just as it would be illogical for a religious person to ignore the faults within their own beliefs. So I believe that this definition of religion is perhaps the most accurate as it does not just include those that believe in a god but all whom strictly follow an idea despite the evidence against it.
The opposite of religion would then need to be completely bias free and neutral, looking only at things how they are and accepting all possibilities until proven false. Obviously, it is very improbable to spend life living in such a way and the possible mental and social consequences of doing so could be dire. For the sake of the argument though this has to be the definition of being non-religious. Following this definition it can be argued that only a few or maybe even none, non-religious people have existed. This is not surprising as we look at the history of humanity. There are a few extremes that really stand out and a majority of history books focus on this and ignore the majority middle ground just from the simple fact that it is boring. This perpetuates a bias though of the world existing in one extreme to another and there being no middle ground. This is obviously is not true and perhaps most of the world functions in some gray area with a few outspoken extremist overshadowing the majority.
For us to move forward we have to ignore this and look at humanity and every religion as a whole and not as separate entities. Based just of a simple definition, there is no difference between a Catholic or a Muslim or a Buddhist and from a broad perspective there truly is no difference in the general level of faith. We are not evaluating ones level of faith by willingness to sacrifice themselves, so as we go forward please step beyond that and look at faith or religion as equal, no matter the extremes. It is more logical to consider the middle ground and not the extremes that would cause the evaluation to be skewed. Of course it is important to consider these extremes by the sheer fact of how they can impact the world but what I am trying to evaluate is the simple idea of religion and not the fanatical version which has been contorted and distorted to a degree that it can be almost as debilitating as any mental deficiency.
So let us begin by first evaluating the idea or belief in a deity or deities. Atheists and skeptics far and wide argue that god is blight upon humanity that limits our physical and mental possibilities. They have valid evidence to such ideas because of the countless deaths caused by the belief in god and many religions encourage the idea of human superiority that leads to massive destruction of the earth. These arguments are valid and show part of what makes religion irrational but these arguments fail to acknowledge some counter arguments. Looking at the idea that we are part of nature and all that we think and construct is part of nature, including god and religion it puts a question to these ideas of religion being a fault. This makes it as real as any manmade construct like language, mathematics, science, etc